NT model of church leadership
I don't know if anyone reads the Next-Wave Ezine, but they had an interesting article this month: What Is A New Testament Model of Church Leadership?
The author notes that when Paul addressed the church in Corinth, he didn't address their Pastor and command him to fix things. In fact, he doesn't even address their Elders and Overseers to respond by exercising their authority over people. The author asks, "Why were the pastors, or for that matter the Elders of the Church, not commanded to exercise their authority and deal with the very serious moral failures within the Church in Corinth?"
I recommend reading the rather short article for his insights: http://www.the-next-wave-ezine.info/issue138/index.cfm?id=61&ref=ARTICLES_FEATURED%20ARTICLE%3A%20AT%20THE%20TOP_825
posted by dan at 6:05 AM
9 Comments:
Dan,
Good stuff!
Skimming the 'articles,' I thought that I was reading Frank Viola. Then I got to the bottom of the page and saw that this guy is deeply involved in the Organic Church.
In addition to the leadership comments, here at Faith, we're patterning our worship from 1 Corinthians 11-14, in which Paul deals with many issues and leaves out words like sermon and any form of the word 'preach.'
If we're going to take our Mission Statement seriously and build our congregations on the New Testament plan, we're going to have to do some serious studying of 1 Corinthians. If we do that, we're in for some pretty startling surprises.
I agree with the point of this article. At the same time, we should remember that there are places where Paul says, in essence, "I could use my authority... but I would rather..." So there was some authority, but the first choice was always to come alongside as servant and brother, to appeal to truth and reason and heart before simply pulling rank.
There is a difference between positional authority and actual spiritual authority. I think in the western institutional church we have thought authority comes with positions, so we end up with people who have the power in a church without really being people who lead in the power of the Spirit.
In thinking about this it struck me how so many of the "leadership" examples we pull from the Bible are from the Old Testament: Abraham, Noah, Moses, Joshua, Joseph, etc. Not that there's anything wrong with that... but we haven't tended to focus much on New Testament models.
And, Fran, you bring up maybe the main reason I am hesitant to place too much emphasis on things like APEST: focusing on 'different' titles is still focusing on TITLES (which seems to lend itself to positional authority). Although maybe it's just something I have a hard time dealing with.
Btw, Bill, I just finished reading 'Jesus Manifesto' by Viola and Sweet. It's the only book of Frank's that I've actually read. It was a good followup to 'The Forgotten Ways' for me.
Fran,
Your point about positional authority and spiritual calling is a necessary one. The notion that leadership is a matter of position or office is not biblical. It is a Christendom paradigm corruption.
Dan.
Re: Hesitating to place emphasis on APEST.
According to Scripture APEST are not titles. According to Scripture, they are gifts to the church from Jesus.
You are correct that because even the best intentioned of us is profoundly steeped in Christendom, we have trouble embracing APEST reality and living in that giftedness. But, the real spiritual truth, according to Ephesians 4:13 is that "until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature..." Jesus will continue to give the church APEST.
So, by all means, hesitate to embrace the way we apply APEST because we are all corrupted by the Christendom myth, but, dude, I think to hesitate to embrace APEST--in yourself and in the Body--is, well, sin. To do that is worse than to be ignorant of the way the Lord wires leadership in the Body.
All I can say about all this leadership talk is that we will always screw it up (no matter our own nuances in understanding the NT leadership paradigm) if we are not leading with "Philippians 2 kind of heart". As soon as one loves position, he has put away the towel and basin and is living for himself.
I'm not sure we have any idea how to combine servant-leadership kind of hearts and clear APEST teaching, because the modern church has sucked on both ends. It's a new breed of leader we must become.
Yes, what Fran said.
It's not that I want to dismiss APEST. But, personally, I prefer to keep it as a 'running program in the background of my mind,' rather than an 'open program on my screen.' And, I know, that doesn't help much in the fight to help others understand it. I don't see that as my concern though. So it's not that I'm opposed to it. But I don't think APEST is going to save the church of today.
I like what Sweet & Viola say in 'Jesus Manifesto':
"...Jesus quizzed Peter with one ultimate question, and only one. And that one decisive question is the same one he asks us today. It is not, 'Are you ready to accept leadership status in My church?' It is not, 'How many people did you lead to Me?' It is not 'Have you spoken in tongues yet?' It is not, 'Is leadership your passion?' It is not, 'To whom will you be accountable?' It is not, 'Are you doing better than the best you can do so God will be happy with you?' And it is not, 'Will you surround yourself with people who have leadership potential and will make you look good?' The question is only this: 'Do you love Me?'"
Show me somebody who is in love with Jesus and I don't give a rats rump if they're an A, P, E, S, or T (or know anything about it), I think they'll be a leader in the church.
Bill,
In reading through my last comment I feel I need to apologize. You have stressed over and over the difference between "macro" and "micro"... and it appears my comments, by default, tend to be more on the micro level, and yours on the macro. Sorry if I am confusing the issue. I also tend to only see things from the perspective of how they are in my church, and fail to consider the denomination - or church - at large.
So, yes, I believe we do need to change our way of thinking about leadership. But Fran does make a great point about the Phil. 2 attitude too.
(This is why I end up deleting so many of my comments - it takes me awhile to figure things out).
Dan,
No need to apologize.
The SSP that we did as a part of the MLI revealed with clarity what I always knew in broad strokes: I am, almost exclusively, a big-picture thinker. It's very difficult for me to think clearly on the micro level.
It's no wonder that I believe that what Western Christianity needs is profound repentance on the macro level.
while i can relate to the writer of the article, there seems to me to be a few things profoundly wrong with it.
while 1Cor. may not address the elders much, might this not be because they too were compromised and were not fit to lead, or were unable to? you see other letters (Phil. & 1Pet.) addressing leaders in the church, and the Pastoral Epistles are entirely addressed to specific leaders at ephesus and crete. and paul, in Acts 20, does not call the whole church at ephesus to come to him at miletus, but the elders only, and he addresses them at length on overseeing the church.
while i agree that it is not the title that makes the man, the article seemed to neglect the fact that those who have an office in the church (elder, deacon, etc.) ought to be a spiritual leader, with qualities like those outlined in 1Tim. 3 and Titus 1. and in that first passage, God tells us that it is a good desire for a man to seek the office of elder. it is true that these men are only to be followed in as far as they are following the Word, and that even they may be removed from office, but we are to respect all the authorities placed over us in the Lord out of reverence to Him, including secular and church governments.
it seems to me the verses quoted in the article that were against "authority" are more properly handled as guarding against abuses of authority, which are born out of a heart hungry for power and prestige rather than a humble mind and a desire to serve. it could be said that we are not to be domineering over those in our charge, but we will give account for their souls before God (Heb. 13). thus paul and james and several others refer to themselves as doulos, bondservants of Christ, and not as rulers to be bowed down to.
so then, the matter is not whether there is spiritual authority in the offices in the church, but who are the men who hold those offices, and why are we so undiscerning in placing men there?
Post a Comment
<< Home